Connect with us


JOHNSTON: Mad Max has abandoned his libertarian ideals, leaving some politically homeless

If a commitment to drug policy reform is a litmus test for libertarianism, the PPC has failed to establish its bonafides — and is now shedding a small but valuable activist base.




Before its most recent incarnation, the Western Standard was nothing more than a Facebook page with 222 followers, reduced from its former glory as a national news magazine. Just a month after refounding, we’re closing in on a readership that rivals many major metropolitan papers. In May of 2017, I posted an article prior to the Conservative leadership race – which almost nobody read – on the old Western Standard Facebook page asking, “Where do the Conservative Party leadership candidates stand on marijuana legalization?”

The question mattered then and still matters now as by some accounts the Conservatives lost the last two elections because they were unable to pick up millennial votes, a large and growing constituency. While the vast majority of Canadians disagree with the Conservative opposition to even modest marijuana policy reforms, millennial voters have actually made this a ballot box issue in both Canada and the US.

The short answer to this question is that none of the candidates in the Conservative leadership race were the least bit inclined to support meaningful marijuana policy reforms, except for Maxime Bernier, or so it was suggested.

In 2015, Marc Emery, Canada’s leading marijuana legalization activist, rallied his supporters to vote for the Trudeau Liberals. In 2017, he shifted his support to Conservative leadership candidate Maxime Bernier and then followed Bernier to the upstart People’s Party of Canada (PPC) in 2018.

Marc Emery (left) at 2017 CPC leadership convention (Photo credit: Matthew Johnston)

Bernier was quiet on marijuana legalization over the course of the leadership race, although he did signal his support for the idea in principle and said he was taking a wait-and-see attitude with respect to whatever legislation finally came before the House. When the bill did come before the House for a final vote in June of 2017, the only Conservative MP to vote in favour of it was Scott Reid. Reid got support for his dissenting vote in a Tweet from current Western Standard Publisher Derek Fildebrandt, then the lone Wildrose or PC MLA to openly support legalization.

Source: Twitter

People like Marc Emery were prepared to give Bernier the benefit of the doubt on this vote and his overall silence on this issue. There is, after all, a lot wrong with Trudeau’s approach to marijuana legalization. But Bernier has still not publicly identified the weaknesses in the legalization framework or offered suggestions on how to improve it. 

After Bernier left the CPC to start the PPC, libertarians who supported his leadership, and senior activists in the Libertarian Party, quickly joined. Their expectation was that, freed from the shackles of the CPC, Bernier would pursue a moderate libertarian agenda with a real chance of electing candidates. Part of this moderate libertarian agenda would be a bold position on marijuana legalization, or so was the expectation. But not only did marijuana legalization not become a campaign issue for the PPC, the party took a hard right turn that puzzled people who had followed Bernier’s career for over a decade.

Adam Richardson, former Atlantic Canada organizer for the PPC, attempted to put marijuana policy reforms on the agenda during the height of media discussions over the enactment of Canada’s new marijuana laws. In an interview with the Western Standard, Richardson explained his thinking: “I thought support for cannabis legalization would differentiate Max from Andrew Scheer and appeal to young voters with little downside. Sure, many older conservative voters are not keen on cannabis legalization, but support for the status quo was very low, estimated at about 10% according to a Fraser Institute study. This was a very clear opportunity to appeal to average Canadian voters that let their vote swing based on issues… many who voted Conservative in the past but switch to Trudeau in 2015. A solid free market cannabis policy would have strong appeal to this large block of Canadian voters.”

Former PPC advisor Adam Richardson proposes marijuana policy

In an email exchange between Richardson and PPC senior advisor Martin Masse, released to the Western Standard, it is clear that neither Masse nor Bernier wanted to touch this issue.

PPC senior policy advisor Martin Masse says “wait” to marijuana policy proposal

For Richardson, opposition to marijuana policy reform, or an unwillingness to address the issue, was evidence enough that Bernier was not serious about redefining what it means to be a limited-government conservative in a socially progressive Canada. He told the Western Standard that “it was becoming clear to me that the messaging was not about a broad appeal to average Canadian voters, but rather to only take hard line positions that would draw from the traditional Conservative party base. I was not interested in being involved with a party whose main objective was just to cause another party to lose.” According to Richardson, there was no obvious strategy to build a mainstream, principled alternative to the CPC and the Liberal Party that might appeal to swing voters. He soon after resigned his volunteer position with the Party. Richardson has been a leading political organizer in Atlantic Canada since the days of the Reform Party and served as Atlantic Advisor to both Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day.

Surprisingly, Marc Emery, who served most of a five year sentence in a US prison for selling marijuana seeds, is not particularly bothered by Bernier silence on marijuana policy reform. In an interview with the Western Standard, Emery said “Masse just told Max to stay away from drug policy.” He added that “I like that Max let each PPC candidate articulate their own view on drug policy. I advised many candidates and Max never interfered. I admire that.” Emery added that he remains committed to the PPC and would be willing to run as a candidate in the next federal election.

Trevor Schmidt is less forgiving of the direction the PPC headed during the campaign and of Bernier’s betrayal of “libertarian-leaning policy ideas”. In an interview with the Western Standard, Schmidt said “A lot of libertarians like myself felt disenfranchised by Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives or didn’t see an opportunity for a break-through with the Libertarian Party and were attracted to Mad Max and the PPC.” Schmidt went on to say “I think libertarians grew disaffected by the PPC not just because the campaign messaging strayed from small government values, but because many people recognized the PPC had adopted a losing strategy.”

Schmidt was the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Canada and resigned before the federal election to join the PPC as a Calgary Electoral District Association coordinator. He laments the fact that the failure of the PPC to represent libertarian ideas means “Canadian libertarians of all stripes get to look forward to rebuilding their infrastructure again from the ground up, wherever they settle politically.”

Clinton Desveaux, former Executive Director of the PPC, says “the 28,000 members, who initially joined the PPC for free, now have expired memberships” and he is not convinced a sizeable portion will renew now that “the party has zero representation in the House of Commons.” Desveaux counts himself among the dissatisfied libertarians.

If a commitment to drug policy reform is a litmus test for libertarianism, the PPC has failed to establish its libertarian bonafides — and is now shedding a small but valuable activist base. If the party survives going forward, it will do so only with the support of those who oppose high levels of immigration and what is called the globalist agenda, meaning interference by the United Nations in Canadian domestic affairs. This has left many pragmatic libertarians without a political home.


WAGNER: 20 years ago today, Kenney was Stockwell Day’s right hand man in purging caucus rebels

On May 15, 2001, Stockwell Day began expelling MPs wanting leadership change from his caucus with the help of Jason Kenney.




A conservative party leader fails to address the concerns of his caucus. The neglected caucus members become disgruntled and openly revolt against the leader, leading to some being expelled from the caucus. 

It’s the UCP in 2021. It’s also the Canadian Alliance in 2001. 

In fact, the Canadian Alliance caucus suspensions began on May 15, 2001, twenty years ago today. It was at that time that eight Alliance MPs publicly called for party leader Stockwell Day to resign, provoking a crackdown.

There are clear parallels between these two conservative parties experiencing similar difficulties in the middle of May. But perhaps the strangest common factor of all is Jason Kenney. In 2001, Kenney was an Alliance MP and a key Day loyalist who supported the expulsion of the dissidents. That is to say, this is not his first caucus rodeo. 

The Canadian Alliance was the successor of the Reform Party of Canada, formed in 2000 as an unsuccessful attempt to “unite the right” at the federal level. Former Alberta Finance Minister Stockwell Day won the leadership of the new party and led it into the November 2000 federal election. However, the new party did not achieve its much hoped-for electoral breakthrough in Ontario, and Day was blamed for the poor result.

Shortly thereafter, Day was involved in a series of missteps and controversies – such as falsely accusing a judge of being in a conflict of interest, and denying he met with an undercover agent after first affirming that he had met with him – that were embarrassing to the party and undermined his credibility as leader. 

By April 2001, the Alliance was polling at 13% nationally, behind Joe Clark’s Progressive Conservatives at 15%, and well behind Jean Chretien’s Liberals. This was embarrassing and clearly undermined the effort to unite-the-right behind the Alliance. 

Nevertheless, Day demanded strict loyalty from his MPs. As Preston Manning recounts in his book Think Big, “On several occasions – at internal meetings in February and March 2001 – when requesting personal loyalty from his caucus officers and key staff, Stockwell had emphasized the point by saying: ‘If I kill my grandmother with an axe, I want you to stand up and say she had it coming.’” 

By May, however, much of the Alliance caucus had lost confidence in Day, and MP Art Hanger publicly called for Day to resign as leader. He was suspended from the caucus, followed shortly by MP Gary Lunn, who agreed with Hanger.

Then, on May 15, eight MPs issued a joint statement calling on Day to resign and were then suspended from caucus. Deborah Grey, the first-ever elected Reform Party MP wrote of that group in her book Never Retreat, Never Explain, Never Apologize: “They were an impressive bunch. Among them were several members of the [Reform Party] Class of 1993. One was Jay Hill (Peace River-Prince George), who had run in the 1988 election and was as faithful to the Reform cause as anyone I have ever met.” That is the same Jay Hill who currently leads the Maverick Party.

These “dissidents” would later be joined by other disgruntled Alliance MPs, and form the Democratic Representative Caucus (DRC). 

Day eventually resigned and then lost the subsequent leadership campaign to Stephen Harper in March 2002. By that time, support for the Alliance was down to 7% in a Gallup poll. The leadership controversy had led to a total meltdown for the party.

During this period of leadership crisis in the Alliance, Jason Kenney was a chief lieutenant to Stockwell Day and supported ousting the dissident MPs. He wasn’t watching from the sidelines. Now, exactly twenty years later, Kenney is once again at the centre of a full-scale caucus revolt. Did he not learn from that initial experience the best practices for caucus management? Apparently not.

As mentioned, the first Alliance MPs suspended from caucus were soon followed by others. In comments to the Calgary Herald, recently expelled MLA Drew Barnes mentioned that some discontented MLAs remain within the UCP caucus and said, “I think as long as the premier doesn’t accept responsibly for how low the UCP has become in the polls, how low his popularity is, that that may embolden some people to speak up.” That is, the caucus revolt may not be over yet. 

Will the UCP undergo a continual erosion of support for its leader, like the Canadian Alliance experienced twenty years ago? Is there another Stephen Harper on the horizon who could take the reigns and restore the party to health in time for the next provincial election? Who in the UCP caucus is playing 2001 Jason Kenney to Stockwell Day for 2021 Jason Kenney?

The beneficiaries of the current internal discord in the UCP are the Wildrose Independence Party and Rachel Notley’s NDP. Many of those disappointed with the UCP are likely to move towards Wildrose, building on its current growth. The party might even pick up one or more former UCP MLAs, giving it a presence in the legislature and a more prominent provincial voice. 

On the down side, the NDP is leading in the polls. Could the unthinkable occur? A second NDP government? For many Albertans, their blood runs cold at the thought. As these possibilities reveal, the current turmoil in the UCP is not just about the future of one party and its leader, but about the future of the province itself.

Michael Wagner is a Columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading


TULK: Canada’s leaders hid behind bureaucrats when they should have led

“The erosion in trust continued and continues with ever changing restrictions many with dubious and everchanging benchmarks.”




As the Battle of France opened and Winston Churchill was sworn in as prime minister, he told the House of Commons and the people of the British Empire, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.” 

He did not then turn the lectern over to the deputy minister of war. 

The struggle of the Second World War was a very different conflict, but it bears resemblance in a few respects: it’s global scale and its economic devastation. But it is strikingly different in others, particularly how the politicians managed and worked with their government bureaucracies.

Once the war truly became global with the Battle of France and in north Africa, the political leaders came to the fore and the bureaucrats stayed in the background. Churchill consulted with industrialists like Beaverbrooke on the mobilization of the British economy; Roosevelt looked to the likes of Ford and Westinghouse to build the military horn of plenty that created such decisive devices as the Higgins boat and the atomic bomb. The response of the private sector and the people in it borders on the miraculous. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the overwhelming majority of politicians have pushed the health bureaucrats to the fore. They let the infectious diseases specialists not only command the podium, but to have a monopoly on decision making. Seldom did one see a bureaucrat whose expertise was mental illness — or bankruptcy or education — speak of the ancillary impacts of the government’s response to the coronavirus. 

Dr. Deena Hinshaw never campaigned for office. She never received a vote from a single Albertan. Nor has she ever voted on a bill in the legislature. It’s one thing to listen to the bureaucrats during a crisis; it’s another to hide behind them and surrender decision making to them. 

Consider the outcomes in this crisis. 

Where the bureaucracy has been given the job, it has generally failed miserably – from communicating the situation, to securing the border, to tracking those infected, to procuring enough vaccines. This should hardly be surprising. Bureaucracy is designed to administer, not to innovate. It is designed to follow orders, not to lead. 

Bureaucracy is fundamentally not accountable in any substantive way; they will have jobs for years to come, while many citizens will have lost their livelihoods, and many politicians their careers due, at least in part, to bureaucrats failing. 

Where the private sector has dominion, combating COVID-19 has been significantly more successful. Fittingly, just saying some of the brand names suffices as proof: Zoom, Amazon, Pfizer, Moderna, Skip-the-Dishes. They, and many others, achieved heroic, hugely beneficial, world-changing feats; all in the name of the despised profit motive. 

Just imagine if Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and the UCP had contracted a logistics companies to increase our hospital and ICU bed capacities, rather than leave it to the bureaucrats. 

And it isn’t just sloth and confusion the government bureaucracies excelled at – it showed what an isolated and smug elite much of it is. 

It did this by showing in the light of day that they had no trust in Albertans to behave like responsible citizens. Most of its dictates have all involved limited basic human freedoms. 

It lied to us, or at the very least, spread misinformation with little effort to correct the record. When those in the health bureaucracy knew well COVID-19 spread almost exclusively via airborne transmission – that masks may be effective – they told citizens they did no good whatsoever. They did not trust us to not run out and hoard the masks that were in stock. 

Had the health bureaucrats respected the people and been upfront with the need to not hoard – to leave the N19 quality masks for the healthcare workers – the vast majority would have complied and found other ways to mask.

Only once the shortage of personal protective equipment passed did Dr. Theresa Tam flip-flop and advice people wear a mask. 

Once this – let’s call it a falsehood – was exposed, their lack of trust in the people was reciprocated in manifold ways – most conspicuously in unlawful gatherings, but also in possibly the far more serious form of resistance and flat-out refusal to get vaccinated. 

Still, the erosion in trust continued and continues with ever changing restrictions many with dubious and ever changing benchmarks. 

Just as the success of Zoom and its clones and other private creations will have long lasting benefits, the damage to the trust in government — both the bureaucracy and the politicians who abandoned their command of it — will possibly last for generations. Certainly, long enough to greatly complicate things when the next crisis hits.

Gord Tulk is a Columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading


SLOBODIAN: No call yet from drive-by activist Fonda after pipeline protest

Drive-by activists tend to perform before the cameras, then scurry away, ignoring their impact on the lives and livelihoods they sanctimoniously mess with.




Hanoi Jane is missing in action.

Weeks have passed since Stephen Buffalo, president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council (IRC), invited actress/activist Jane Fonda to partake in a “respectful discussion” about Alberta’s oil sands industry.

Fonda, contemptuously dubbed Hanoi Jane due to her loathsome activism during the Vietnam war, still hasn’t called back.

Not surprising. Drive-by activists tend to perform before the cameras, then scurry away, ignoring their impact on the lives and livelihoods they sanctimoniously mess with.

Buffalo’s invitation came on the heels of another one of Fonda’s one-star rating activism performances. She was in Minnesota on March 15 to protest the Line 3 oil pipeline replacement.

“We were driving down the highway and we saw this, we saw the pipeline that they want to lay under the headwaters of the Mississippi,” said Fonda referring to an Enbridge Energy sign, in a video posted to Twitter.

Actress Jane Fonda at pipeline protest

“That company Enbridge, it’s a foreign company. It’s bringing oil from Canada, tar sands oil, the worst,” said Fonda, heroically vowing to “try to stop it.”

It was a bit confusing. She was driving by and stumbled onto her favourite thing to protest? That would be the oil and gas industry.

Why was she even in the neighbourhood? Her mansions are in California, New Mexico and Georgia.

And wouldn’t a high-profile activist insist on a mandatory hefty fee before leaping out of a vehicle to get her boots dirty on a remote road in a faraway state?

Fortunately, Fonda cleared up the confusion on Instagram, stating “friends” with the Ojibwe Water Protectors invited her to “join them in the fight to stop Line 3.”

Her “friends” have the right to do that. Fonda doesn’t the right to disrespectfully ignore Buffalo, who represents so many First Nations in Canada.

Line 3, which runs from Alberta through Minnesota to Wisconsin, is being protested by American indigenous and climate groups claiming it harms the environment. Supporters say it’s environmentally safe and good for the economy.

Fonda apparently doesn’t want to bother with hearing both sides.

This column isn’t about determining whether the pipeline’s good or bad. It’s about Fonda poking her nose where it doesn’t belong. Again.

It’s impossible to look at that woman without remembering her perched on an antiaircraft gun – used to shoot down American helicopters – while surrounded by Viet Cong soldiers when she visited Hanoi in 1972 to protest the Vietnam war.

More than 58,000 U.S. and hundreds of Canadian soldiers were killed in North Vietnam. Those who returned, many without limbs, many surviving brutal torture by the Viet Cong, were spat on and discriminated by an American public that activists like Fonda worked into a hateful frenzy.

Fonda told America the Viet Cong were the victims and didn’t use torture tactics, that U.S. soldiers and government were liars.

But if the Viet Cong did resort to torture, she reasoned, it was justified.

“These men were bombing and staffing and Napalming the country,” she said of her fellow Americans.

“If a prisoner tried to escape, it’s quite understandable that he would probably be beaten and tortured,” she said, according to a 1973 Associated Press story.

Decades later Vietnam vets remain tormented by the invisible wounds of PTSD, because of the hellish war many were drafted to fight in and the hatred, fueled by Fonda, unleashed on them at home.

And who can forget Fonda’s helicopter landing in Fort McMurray in 2017? She emerged to lecture people – still reeling from their homes and businesses being destroyed by wildfires – about massive open-pit bitumen mines.

Fonda has zero credibility.

Nonetheless, Buffalo, who is based on the Tsuut’ina Nation near Calgary, was remarkably cordial and restrained when he invited her to chat.

Fonda may not care about some of the lives she impacts.

But Buffalo does.

The IRC advocates on behalf of 147 oil and gas producing Canadian First Nations.

“I see you are in Minnesota on Line 3 calling our oil sands the worst,” said Buffalo in a message to Fonda. “I’d like to invite you to join my colleagues and I on a Zoom call to give you the real story about great things happening in Northern Alberta.”

Buffalo noted that the energy sector is critical to First Nations economic and social development.

“As people closest to the land we have an input into the environmental stewardship which we are very proud of. Our communities have had concerns in the past. But we’re working with industry to develop solutions to protect the environment while growing our economy,” he said.

“I hope you’ll join me in respectful discussions to answer any questions you might have. Let’s have a conversation based on facts, not stereotypes based on dogmas and ideology.”

To be fair, maybe Hanoi Jane’s so anxious to hear Buffalo’s side she planned to visit rather than call. Maybe that big jet that carts her around needs to fuel up. Maybe she’s stuck in some long lineup caused by the severe gas shortages in the U.S. because of the ransomware attack on Colonial pipeline.

Yeah, pipelines – who needs them!

Linda Slobodian is the Manitoba Political Columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading


Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.